About your Search

20140226
20140306
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and if not because religion is a protected group there could be a reo religious claim brought against them. gay people are not protected from any kind of discrimination by the religious print. >> in that analogy, the gay group is not a religious group so if this law passed they couldn't argue on religious grounds that they wouldn't print up this stuff for the west borough baptist church. >> exactly right. what's really striking about this, nobody except for at the very end i thought it was really telling he used the example of gay people. nobody is willing either tonight or in your prior interviews to say the word "gay" in defending bill. an entire interview they tap danced around the word "gay." if you go to yarbrough, he was up front about saying the situation in new mexico where a photographer was forced to take photographs of same sex couples commitment ceremony or wedding. >> she was sued because she wouldn't in new mexico which violates the state statutes in new mexico protecting discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. but you're right. early on a lot of lawmakers were
across the country. here's the meat of 1062 in arizona. "exercise of religion means the practice of or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." here is hb 376 in ohio. "exercise of religion means the practice or observance of religion. it includes but is not limited to the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not it's central to a larger system of larger belief." it's almost identical language, and that's no accident. sb 1062 and hb 376 and legislation in other states all share the same legal genetic code traceable back to a number of christian conservative special interest groups in the case of 1062, an outfit called the center for arizona policy, another called the alliance defending freedom didn't just push for the bill they also helped write for the bill much that's what representatives from both organ
with her if she could come up with one single example of discrimination based on religion in arizona that people of faith have suffered through. she couldn't come up with one other than hypotheticals that maybe might happen. but she had no actual example of it actually having occurred. that's interesting because governor brewer specifically pointed that out. i want to play some of that exchange we had with nancy barta, one of the authors of s b 1062. >> senator, do you have any actual example of someone in arizona being forced to do something against their religious beliefs? >> well, in arizona it could be happening all the time, yes. >> do you have an actual example? >> well, surely. people may be being asked to -- >> i mean where it's actually happened. >> well, obviously if people aren't bringing it to court we don't know about it at this point. but we do know that without this law, people would not be able to defend themselves in court. >> but again, you can't name actually one example where this has happened. because people opposed to this say look, this is a problem -- this is
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)